Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#31

Post by King-Aaron »

pelario wrote: post #26

"When a reporter recently challenged Liu to answer the middle-school questions about the “meaning” and the “central themes” of his story, he didn’t get a single one right. “I’m a writer,” he told me, with a shrug. “I don’t begin with some conceit in mind. I’m just trying to tell a good story.”" Does anybody have a link or know more about this ?

My mother is a semi-professional artist, and I've overheard a similar thing at one of her exhibitions once. Some journalists (or some such) were standing in front of one of her pieces, discussing the deeper meaning behind the work and what the artist must have been trying to express at the time. My Mum just laughed and said "the only thing behind this piece was three bottles of wine"

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#32

Post by arethuza »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #21
Tinfoilhat666 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are Westeners always criticizing other cou tries? I think its great that there are different competing systems. The best ones evolve. It's not a good idea to have all eggs in one basket. It would be sad if all countries were like USA.

If Britain were putting their dissidents and muslims in concentration camps I would be very vocally criticising my own country - which I suppose means I'd be a dissident earmarked for a concentration camp. I already do criticise on lots of other topics, and some of our worse moments of empire in history, or the lives ruined by UK's austerity dogma. I criticise the US too, and don't want to be just like them either. W…

"I'd be a dissident earmarked for a concentration camp"

From what I remember of Duncan Campbell's Secret Society I believe the legislation for just emergency measures as interment of 'subversives' and other emergency measures was drafted during the Cold War - this would be expected to be passed by parliament in the event of a suitable emergency. I would suspect these things have never been thrown out but will still be there in a filing cabinet somewhere in Whitehall.

Let's hope we don't meet in a camp one day and laugh about the naivety of our postings on HN....

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#33

Post by r3bl »

pelario wrote: post #26

"When a reporter recently challenged Liu to answer the middle-school questions about the “meaning” and the “central themes” of his story, he didn’t get a single one right. “I’m a writer,” he told me, with a shrug. “I don’t begin with some conceit in mind. I’m just trying to tell a good story.”" Does anybody have a link or know more about this ?

Not about Liu, but written by another frustrated writer that couldn't answer middle-school questions about her own poems: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad...

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#34

Post by scarejunba »

arugulum wrote: post #24
ur-whale wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate here, but to be fair, there's a pretty decent likelihood that we in the west have indeed been "brainwashed" into believing that freedom is actually more important than these other things he's listing (health care, housing, education, etc...). If you set aside freedom as a goal in itself for a second, then it's actually worth asking: is freedom actually the most important factor leading to those other…

> They phrased it this way: sure, we don't have a free press, and we have a benevolent tyrant running the place, but: I think the bigger problem is people completely mischaracterizing what Singapore is. Modern Singapore is nothing like a "benevolent tyranny". The best way to characterize it is probably to imagine a large, well-run city with strict laws, heavy bureaucracy, expansive regulation and government involveme…

Not trying to be annoying but your comment is more convincing of the opposite of what you're saying than of what you're saying.

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#35

Post by jrimbault »

v-yadli wrote: post #18
jrimbault wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheng Xin, compared to Luo Ji, has next to zero initiative and is a paper thin character which seems to only be there to metaphorically scream "woman are weak and bad for civilization". The whole section of the book/civilization where everyone is feminized and most of the toxic male behaviors have been repressed is depicted as a "bad thing" leading to weak people and a weak civilization. The first book was decent, ce…

Mind you, weak && bad does not imply inconsequence. Try to put the PC for our time aside, and think about this again. In the cold and cruel universe, what would survive? Advance, advance at all costs. Edit: You don’t have to save the universe in bold to become a character. Being paper thin and then destroy the 3 dimensional universe, on behalf of the will of mankind?

She lets it end. No one apart from the mysterious (urg) race of aliens is trying to destroy the universe by collapsing it, they might as well be nothing, and story telling wise they're just a natural disaster without agency. She just stays in her dimensional safe box and doesn't take action. Her only actions are choosing to let things happen, but she's never the one putting them in action.

Also, the goal isn't/shouldn't be growth at all cost in a story. The axiom of Liu Cixin is his theory of "The Dark Forest", which is what it is, a literary axiom, not an universal truth.

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#36

Post by nathanyukai »

mamoswine wrote: post #19
ur-whale wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate here, but to be fair, there's a pretty decent likelihood that we in the west have indeed been "brainwashed" into believing that freedom is actually more important than these other things he's listing (health care, housing, education, etc...). If you set aside freedom as a goal in itself for a second, then it's actually worth asking: is freedom actually the most important factor leading to those other…

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it relies on the benevolence of a dictatorship (and I don't use the term dictatorship pejoratively). It's all fine and good to have a system where people's needs are provided for and in general the populace is taken care of (for example, the housing situation in Singapore is very good and much better than places where people have to pay through the nose for shacks, like…

I disagree with your last point, just because some topics are forbidden to talk about, does not mean that creativity in general is suppressed in anyway.

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#37

Post by simion314 »

jrimbault wrote: post #11
Aeolun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No consequential female characters? I don’t know what series you read, but it was not the same one. Almost half the cast is female. Do you mean something different?

Cheng Xin, compared to Luo Ji, has next to zero initiative and is a paper thin character which seems to only be there to metaphorically scream "woman are weak and bad for civilization". The whole section of the book/civilization where everyone is feminized and most of the toxic male behaviors have been repressed is depicted as a "bad thing" leading to weak people and a weak civilization. The first book was decent, ce…

>Cheng Xin, compared to Luo Ji, has next to zero initiative and is a paper thin character which seems to only be there to metaphorically scream "woman are weak and bad for civilization".

I interpreted it differently, the fact that some male characters can be less empathetic and could potentially solve some crisis does not mean that all men or all women are X, I am bad with names so I don't remember them, but in the end why did the man let her take the final decision about the secret project/attack ? (it seemed out of character or a way to place the hard decision on other IMO)

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#38

Post by hungryhobo »

fsloth wrote: post #22

Science. The only culture that ever begot science was the tradition of greek philosophy and democracy that you could discuss everything, and that everyone was on the same playing ground. Materially, China could have come up with scientific progress for a thousand years, but they didn't, because they lacked the culture for open debate and expression of ideas. No freedom of press, no cars. That's the historical perspec…

I wouldn't necessarily relate scientific progress with democracy. Philosophers like Pluto and Aristotle were famously against the idea of democracy. Honestly I can't imagine scientific laws get passed by virtue of having most votes.

I also you confuse openness in political debate with openness in STEM, yes China prohibits the former, but definitely not the latter

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#39

Post by scarejunba »

fsloth wrote: post #22

Science. The only culture that ever begot science was the tradition of greek philosophy and democracy that you could discuss everything, and that everyone was on the same playing ground. Materially, China could have come up with scientific progress for a thousand years, but they didn't, because they lacked the culture for open debate and expression of ideas. No freedom of press, no cars. That's the historical perspec…

Fascinating. One can imagine that applying this seemingly curiously and typically Greek principle of hypothesize-experiment-falsify to the thesis of free conversation and science combined with the existence of sharashki would yield interesting results.

But some ardent disciple somewhere may preach otherwise, fearing the use of his favourite tool lest he tarnish it through use. Present company naturally excluded.

Re: Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds

#40

Post by basementcat »

UglycupRawky wrote: post #13

It's a truly fascinating piece, but wow, I didn't expect going in that I'd come out not liking him. On the other hand, I didn't really know anything about Liu Cixin or his work before now, so maybe this is all well-trodden ground for everyone else.

Perhaps he chose to be cautious with his remarks in case any authorities happen to read the New Yorker.
Post reply on HN